RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000309


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Karl L. Briales               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruier              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James R. Hastie               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United
States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show the award of
the Purple Heart (PH).

2.  The applicant states that he was wounded on the back of his fingers of
his right hand by a piece of shrapnel on 29 March 1969.  He continues that
he didn't go to the Aid station to have the shrapnel removed until 2-3 days
later, after returning from the field.  He concludes that the PH will allow
him to be put in the proper priority group for Veterans Affairs (VA)
medical care.

3.  The applicant provides a two-page self-authored statement, three
statements from fellow Soldiers who state they served with him in the same
unit in Vietnam, and a copy of his DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 5 June 1970, the date of his separation from active duty.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 14 September 2005.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant's records show that he was inducted on 6 June 1968.  He
completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was
awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10 (Infantryman).  The
applicant was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 502nd Airborne
Infantry, and served a tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam during the
period
27 November 1968 through 28 November 1969.  The applicant was honorably
released from active duty on 5 June 1970.

4.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and
Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 does
not show award of the PH.

5.  Item 40 (Wounds) of the applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification
Record) is blank.

6.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant's DA Form 20 does not
show award of the PH.

7.  There are no medical records in the applicant’s official military
personnel file that show he sustained wounds as a result of hostile action
or that show he was treated for wounds sustained as a result of hostile
action.

8.  There are no general orders in the applicant’s records awarding him the
PH.  The applicant’s name does not appear on the Republic of Vietnam
Casualty Roster.

9.  The applicant provided a self-authored statement in which he states
that, after requesting and receiving a copy of his DD Form 214, he noticed
that the PH was not listed.  He continues that he contacted a few Soldiers
he served with in Vietnam who were aware of his wounding and they provided
statements which are enclosed.  He continues that, on 29 March 1969, he was
an M-60 Machine gunner when his unit made contact with the enemy.  During
the course of the firefight, the enemy engaged them with small arms fire
and Rocket-Propelled Grenades (RPG's).  He continues that, as he was firing
the M-60, an RPG struck the barrel of the M-60 causing it to bend, and
causing him a shrapnel wound to the back of his fingers of his right hand.
He concludes that he had his company medic treat him in the field, and that
2-3 days later, when he returned from the field to Landing Zone (LZ) Sally,
he was told by his commander to go to the Aid Station, have the shrapnel
removed, get treated for the infection that developed, and have the medics
or doctor do the paperwork for award of the PH.

10.  A fellow Soldier provided a 11 September 2005 statement in which he
wrote that, in May 1969, he was assigned as the platoon leader and the
applicant was one of his squad leaders.  He [the platoon leader] was
informed that the applicant had just returned to the platoon after being
treated for wounds received six weeks earlier while acting as a machine
gunner.  He concludes that the applicant's wounds were common knowledge
among the men of his platoon and urges correction of his records to show
the PH.

11.  A second fellow Soldier provided a statement in which he wrote, "This
is to certify that the applicant received shrapnel to the fingers of his
right hand during fire fight on 29 March 1969".

12.  A third fellow Soldier provided a statement in which he states that
the applicant was injured in Vietnam on 29 March 1969 while serving with
his unit.  He continues that he was serving as a team leader of another
team in the same squad as the applicant.  He continues that the applicant
was injured when the applicant's squad was making a flanking maneuver to
secure a high ground ridge after his team ran into the enemy and was pinned
down by RPG's.  He continues that the applicant was the M-60 machine gunner
at the time and was drawing the fire of the RPG's when his barrel was hit
by an RPG leaving shrapnel to his right hand.  He concludes that the medic
advised the applicant to leave the field, but he refused because there were
other Soldiers more seriously wounded, so he stayed and had the medic patch
him up.

13.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part,
that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of
hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that
the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required
treatment by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been
made a matter of official record.  This regulation also stated that
authority to award the Purple Heart was delegated to hospital commanders.
Further, it directed that all personnel treated and released within 24
hours will be awarded the Purple Heart by the organization to which the
individual is assigned. Personnel requiring hospitalization in excess of 24
hours or evacuation from Vietnam will be awarded the Purple Heart directly
by the hospital commander rendering treatment.  This regulation also
provides that there are no time limitations or requests for awards of the
Purple Heart.

14.  Review of the applicant's records indicates entitlement to additional
awards that are not shown on his DD Form 214.

15.  The applicant's DA Form 20 shows he had a character and efficiency
rating of "excellent" throughout his service on active duty and had no
convictions by courts-martial.

16.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time when the service member
was discharged, required that throughout a qualifying period of service for
award of the Good Conduct Medal the enlisted person must have had all
“excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-
martial.  This period
is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends
with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  With the
publication of the new Army Regulation 672-5-1, in 1974, the requirement
for all excellent conduct and efficiency ratings was dropped and an
individual was required to show that he/she willingly complied with the
demands of the military environment, had been loyal and obedient, and
faithfully supported the goals of his organization and the Army.  Today,
Army Regulation 600-8-22, which replaced Army Regulation 672-5-1, notes
that there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal and
disqualification must be justified.  Current practice requires that the
commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and permits
the individual to respond.

17.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign
Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units
serving in Vietnam.  This document shows the unit to which the applicant
was assigned to, Company C, 1st Battalion, 502nd Airborne Infantry, was
cited for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit
Citation based on Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 43,
dated 1970, the Valorous Unit Award based on DAGO Number 2, dated 1971, and
the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation
based on DAGO Number 48, 1971.

18.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Vietnam Service
Medal with two bronze service stars indicating campaign credit.  However,
the applicant's records indicate he participated in the Vietnam
Counteroffensive, Phase VI, TET 69 Counteroffensive, Vietnam Summer-Fall
1969, and the Vietnam Winter-Spring 1970 campaigns.

19.  Appendix B of Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows that the applicant
participated in four campaigns during his tour of duty in Vietnam.  This
same regulation states that a bronze service star will be awarded for wear
on the Vietnam Service Medal for participation in each campaign.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show
the award of the PH.

2.  The three statements provided to the applicant by former comrades-in-
arms were thoroughly reviewed.  The first statement indicates only that the
platoon leader "heard" the applicant had been wounded and was rejoining the
platoon
from the hospital.  The second statement is merely a flat declaration
without any elaboration of the facts surrounding the events which led to
the alleged wounding.  The third statement reveals that the author was
pinned down with his squad while the applicant was with another squad
conducting a flanking maneuver; this Soldier apparently did not witness the
actual wounding.  Finally, all three statements were written nearly 40
years after the alleged event and, therefore, are impossible to corroborate
by the available records.

3.  There are no general orders that show the applicant was awarded the
Purple Heart.  There is no evidence in his service personnel records which
shows that he was wounded or injured as a result of hostile action or
treated for such wounds.  The applicant's name is not listed on the Vietnam
Casualty Roster.  In the absence of such evidence, there is insufficient
basis to grant award of the Purple Heart in this case.

4.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant had 2 years of credible
service at the time of discharge.  There is no evidence of any conviction
by court-martial contained in the applicant’s records.  Additionally, his
DA Form 20 shows that he was rated “excellent” in conduct and efficiency.
Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show award of the
Army Good Conduct Medal.

5.  General Orders show the applicant was awarded the Republic of Vietnam
Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, the Valorous Unit Award, and the
Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation which are not
shown on his separation document.  Therefore he is entitled to correction
of his records to show these foreign unit awards.

6.  Records show that the applicant participated in four campaigns during
his service in Vietnam.  Therefore is eligible for award of four bronze
service stars to be affixed to his Vietnam Service Medal.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 5 June1970; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
4 June 1973.  Although the applicant did not file within the ABCMR’s
statute of limitations, it is appropriate to waive failure to timely file
based on the fact there are no time limitations on requests for award of
the Purple Heart.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__jea___  __ded___  __jrh___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the award of
the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period of service 6 June 1968 through 5
June 1970, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation,
Valorous Unit Award, Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit
Citation and two more bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded
Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
the award of the Purple Heart.



                                  James E. Anderholm
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000309                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060808                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0056                                |
|2.                      |107.0094                                |
|3.                      |107.0033                                |
|4.                      |107.0095                                |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]